Abstract
In the last decade, there has been a shift toward the digitisation of learning and education, partly prompted by a belief that digital technologies are more interactive than non-digital ones, and that traditional methods of education are now outdated and passé. In this context, more interactivity is seen to be better—it is associated with being more engaging, more entertaining, and more fun. This belief has led both parents and educators to adopt the use of digital technologies and techniques to engage young learners. However, it is unclear if more digital interactivity actually makes for better learning. In response to this issue, this chapter examines the notion of interactivity in relation to learning, experience, technology, education, and cognitive load. It also discusses what this might suggest about the relationships between digital technologies, interactivity, and learning. The concept of cognitive load was used to interpret the results of visually map** the dimensions of interactivity in three different Learning Experience Scenarios (LES) using the model of interactivity created by Tay (2018). The three different LES selected for comparison were a printed worksheet, Mathletics (an online learning mathematics website), and Minecraft (a popular multi-player online game).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Atkinson, R. C., & Shriffin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 2(1968), 89–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60422-3.
Boy, A. V., & Pine, G. J. (1999). A person-centred foundation for counseling and psychotherapy. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
Classen, C. (1999). Other ways to wisdom: Learning through the senses across cultures. International Review of Education, 45(1999), 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003894610869.
Davis, H. E. (2012). Technology in the classroom: A deweyan perspective. Kentucky Journal of Higher Education Policy and Practice, 1(2), 2. Accessed from https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kjhepp/vol1/iss2/2.
Di Fuccio, R., Ponticorvo, M., Ferrara, F., & Miglino, O. (2016). Digital and multisensory storytelling: Narration with smell, taste and touch. In K. Verbert, M. Sharples, & T. Klobučar (Eds.), Adaptive and Adaptable Learning (EC-TEL 2016, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9891, pp. 509–512). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45153-4_51.
Garrison, J. (1994). Realism, Deweyan pragramatism, and educational research. Educational Researcher, 23(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X023001005.
Jonsson, I. M., Ekström, M. P., & Gustafsson, I. (2005). Appetizing learning in Swedish comprehensive schools: An attempt to employ food and tasting in a new form of experimental education. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29(1), 78–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00382.x.
Li, Q. (2007). Student and teacher views about technology: A tale of two cities? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 377–397. Accessed from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ768884.pdf.
Marsh, J. (Ed.). (2005). Popular culture, new media and digital literacy in early childhood. London: Routledge Falmer.
Mustonen, S., Rantanen, R., & Tuorila, H. (2009). Effect of sensory education on school children’s food perception: A 2-year follow-up study. Food Quality and Preference, 20(3), 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.10.003.
Smith, C. R. (2002). Click on me! An example of how a toddler used technology in play. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 2(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687984020021001.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5.
Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5.
Tay, J. L. M. (2018). A model for map** interactivity in learning experiences. (Doctoral dissertation). Accessed from https://espace.curtin.edu.au/handle/20.500.11937/70568
Tijou, A., Richard, E., & Richard, P. (2006). Using olfactive virtual environments for learning organic molecules. In Z. Pan, R. Aylett, H. Diener, X. **, S. Göbel, & L. Li (Eds.), Technologies for E-Learning and Digital Entertainment (Edutainment 2006, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3942, 1223–1233). https://doi.org/10.1007/11736639_152.
Yelland, N. (2007). Shift to the future: Rethinking learning with new technologies in education. New York: Routledge.
Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., & Evenson, S. (2007, April). Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 493–502).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tay, J.L.MJ. (2021). Digital Technologies and Children: Does more Digital Interactivity Make for Better Learning?. In: Holloway, D., Willson, M., Murcia, K., Archer, C., Stocco, F. (eds) Young Children’s Rights in a Digital World. Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research, vol 23. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65916-5_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65916-5_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-65915-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-65916-5
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)